Steve,
I am, I confess, rankled to be called abstrooos, because I try hard to be clear. Bad as I am at it, it is a central passion of my life. The temptation is always just to mouth the words that make one feel like an expert, rather than try out words that might actually communicate one’s understanding to a person who does not yet share it. In this conversation, I see that a lot of people, yourself included, have been working very hard to be clear to one another, although it is very hard work. Doug has little standing to criticize others for being abstrooos, because he has usually ducked any request that he explain something difficult to somebody who does not share his training. He may hold the view …. And has, in fact, in at least one conversation defended the view … that talking to non-experts about matters in a field in which he holds expertise is simply not a useful exercise. But that, I think, quickly leads to the idea that we should be governed by scientist-kings in all important matters to which scientific expertise is relevant. That prospect is pretty scary to me. Unless one favors such a government, one really has no choice but to jump in the sty with the rest of us pigs and wallow around with us. Come on in, Doug. The mud’s just fine! What is the halting problem? Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:25 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy Owen - Its starting to get lonely here! It is kind of a "dogpile" here... with Doug now perched on top! <grin> I am *sympathetic* with your desire to have the (mostly formal) language you are most familiar/comfortable with to apply more *directly* to one you may merely have romantic ideas about. But romance does not an isomorphism make? Maybe we can reframe the discussion in a way that lets you out from under the crush... Is it possible that you are asking something more like? Why isn't the language of philosophical logic (ala Bertrand Russell) sufficient for all philosophical discourse? And if it is, can it not therefore be mapped completely (and obviously) into a specification suitable for automated processing by a computer program? And who wouldn't want that kind of automated verifiability? Nick cornered you (with his breathy Marilyn Monroe voice and Groucho eyebrows) in the cocktail conversation. I *think* his point was at least partly that even *IF* you could reduce all philosophical discourse to being equivalent to computer science, it wouldn't help make the conversation accessible to anyone without significant experience/training/exposure to the specialized language involved? Maybe the rest of us are just jealous if we imagine that you could "glibly" get away with such cocktail conversations (and by get away with, I mean successfully make the point to someone with limited domain-specific knowledge, not just get them to pretend to understand as they sidle off toward the exit or the group playing Twister in the corner)? But that image (embellished by me of course) was Nick's, not yours so it isn't really fair to beat you with that one. In a nod to Doug (perched smugly on top of the pile), I have to acknowledge the precision of his choice of the term "abstruse"... I had to look it up (not because I didn't have a working knowledge, but because I wanted to see if he and I likely use it the same way): ab·struse /abˈstro͞os/ Adjective Difficult to understand; obscure. Synonyms obscure - recondite - deep - profound I have to admit to having always treated it as a portmanteau word formed roughly from "abstract" and "obtuse". Not *quite* as generous as the definition given above: "Annoyingly Insensitive" compounded with "dissociated from any specific instance". Wait... maybe that *is* his use? ob·tuse /əbˈt(y)o͞os/ Adjective 1. Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand. 2. Difficult to understand. Synonyms dull - blunt - dense - slow-witted 1ab·stract adjective \ab-ˈstrakt, ˈab-ˌ\ 1 a : disassociated <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disassociate> from any specific instance <an abstract entity> b : difficult to understand : abstruse <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstruse> <abstract problems> c : insufficiently factual : formal <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/formal> <possessed only an abstract right> 2 : expressing a quality apart from an object <the word poem is concrete, poetry is abstract> 3 a : dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : theoretical <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theoretical> <abstract science> b : impersonal <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impersonal> , detached <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detached> <the abstract compassion of a surgeon — Time> 4 : having only intrinsic <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic> form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content <abstract painting> — ab·stract·ly adverb — ab·stract·ness noun - Steve
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
